Introduction
Motions of no confidence are an important democratic safeguard. They allow members to hold Directors, Officers and senior appointees accountable where there are serious concerns about leadership, conduct, governance, or confidence in the organisation’s direction.
Because these motions are significant, they should be handled through a clear and fair process. A no-confidence motion can affect reputations, disrupt ongoing work, and create uncertainty for members, volunteers, athletes and officials. At the same time, the process must not prevent members from raising legitimate concerns or exercising their rights.
This proposal therefore seeks to clarify the process for member-initiated Motions of No Confidence. It preserves the right of members to bring such motions, while introducing proportionate safeguards to ensure that any motion is supported by a minimum level of member backing, submitted in writing, based on specific concerns, and reviewed for procedural validity before being placed before the membership.
The review process would not decide whether the motion is right or wrong, nor would it assess the political or subjective merits of the concerns raised. Its purpose would be limited to checking that the motion meets the required threshold, contains sufficiently specific claims, avoids defamatory or malicious material, and can be circulated in a way that respects legal, safeguarding, privacy and confidentiality obligations.
Where a motion is validated, it would be added to the relevant meeting agenda, with appropriate supporting papers made available to members in advance of the vote. The membership would then debate and vote on the motion under the usual meeting rules.
The purpose of these amendments is to balance accountability with fairness and organisational stability. Members should have a meaningful route to challenge leadership where necessary, but the process should also protect British Powerlifting from unclear, unsupported, malicious, or procedurally defective motions.
Rationale
Strong governance balances two principles: the right of members to hold leadership accountable, and the organisation’s need for continuity and stability in its operations. Establishing a clear, evidence-based process for motions of no confidence brings British Powerlifting in line with recognised standards in sports governance.
Similar thresholds and validation procedures are common across respected governing bodies, including the International Olympic Committee and UK Sport-affiliated organisations. These measures ensure that significant motions are both representative of the membership’s will and supported by substantiated information before being escalated for consideration.
By implementing this approach, British Powerlifting reinforces its commitment to fairness, member empowerment, and organisational resilience.
Motion text
Proposed Amendments:
To reinforce accountability, fairness, and stability within British Powerlifting’s governance processes, the following amendments to the Constitution are proposed:
Part A — Articles Of Association (Insert As A New Article)
[Insert as a new Article immediately after the existing article that governs member motions/AGM business—e.g., “Article 103A. Motions of No Confidence”. Renumber if needed.]
Article 103A — Motions of No Confidence
103A.1 Definition. A “Motion of No Confidence” is a member motion expressing loss of confidence in (i) any Director or Officer of the Company, or (ii) any executive appointed by the Board.
103A.2 Threshold. Any Motion of No Confidence must be supported in writing by at least 10% of the mean average number of voting participants at the previous two Annual General Meetings (AGMs), or 15 individual voting members, whichever is higher.
103A.3 Filing and timing. Motions of No Confidence must be filed within the time limits applicable to member motions for General Meetings under these Articles. Any agenda inclusion and notice to members shall comply with the notice provisions of these Articles.
103A.4 Independent procedural review. Before tabling to the membership, each Motion of No Confidence shall undergo an independent procedural review conducted in accordance with the By-Laws. The purpose of the review is to assure procedural integrity (including threshold verification, specificity of claims, and the exclusion of defamatory or malicious material). It shall not assess the political or subjective merit of the motion.
103A.5 Transparency and reasons. The outcome of the independent procedural review, including the fact of validation or non-validation, shall be recorded. Where a Motion of No Confidence is not validated, the proposers shall be provided with written reasons identifying the procedural deficiencies relied upon, subject to legal, safeguarding, confidentiality and data-protection obligations. A summary of the outcome shall be reported to members in accordance with the By-Laws.
103A.6 Companies Act non-derogation. Nothing in these Articles or the By-Laws limits members’ statutory rights under the Companies Act 2006, including (a) the right of members to require the directors to call a general meeting, and (b) the right to propose and pass a resolution to remove a director (including special-notice requirements).
103A.7 By-Law governance. The Board may make and amend By-Laws governing the administration of Motions of No Confidence provided that any such By-Laws are consistent with these Articles and the Companies Act 2006.
Part B — By-Laws (Add As A New Part; Renumber Locally As Needed)
Part X — Motions of No Confidence (Article 103A)
X.1 Scope. This Part sets out the procedures for submission, validation, publication, and meeting management of Motions of No Confidence under Article 103A.
X.2 Threshold reference. The threshold in Article 103A.2 applies. Evidence of support shall consist of written confirmations (including electronic signatures or authenticated member IDs) collected and retained for audit.
X.3 Submission window.
(a) For AGMs, motions must be submitted no later than the last day permitted for member motions under the Articles.
(b) For EGMs, motions must comply with the Articles’ notice periods for General Meetings.
(c) Late submissions may be considered for the next General Meeting.
X.4 Independent procedural review.
(a) Reviewer. The review shall be conducted by the Governance & Nominations Committee (GNC) or equivalent, which must include at least one independent non-executive member or an external governance adviser not subject to the motion.
(b) Scope. The review shall confirm that:
(i) the threshold in Article 103A.2 is met;
(ii) the motion states specific claims, each linked to verifiable information/evidence;
(iii) the materials are free from defamatory or malicious content; and
(iv) publication would not breach privacy, safeguarding, or legal duties.
(c) Limits. The review does not evaluate political or subjective merit. If the evidential standard is not met, the GNC shall invite the proposers to remedy deficiencies within a reasonable period before the filing deadline.
(d) Opportunity to remedy. Where the reviewer considers that a motion does not meet the procedural requirements, the proposers shall, where reasonably practicable and before any final decision of non-validation, be given written reasons and a reasonable opportunity to remedy the identified deficiencies before the applicable filing deadline.
(e) Conflicts and Board-related motions. Where a motion concerns the conduct, confidence, or governance of the Board, any Director, or any member of the GNC, the conflicted person shall take no part in the procedural review. In such cases, the review shall include an independent non-executive member who is not conflicted or, where appropriate, an external governance adviser. The reviewer’s written reasons shall confirm how conflicts were managed.
(f) Reconsideration. Where a motion is not validated, the proposers may request reconsideration within seven days of receiving the written reasons. The reconsideration shall be limited to procedural validity and shall be conducted by a person or panel not materially involved in the original decision, which may include an external governance adviser where conflicts or Board conduct are alleged.
X.5 Agenda and papers. For validated motions, the Company shall publish an agenda update and supporting papers not less than 14 clear days before the relevant meeting (without prejudice to the statutory notice already given under the Articles). Sensitive material may be redacted on legal advice.
X.6 Meeting management. The Chair may group related motions, set reasonable speaking limits, and require written questions in advance to ensure orderly debate, provided members’ rights to demand a poll or vote under the Articles are preserved.
X.7 Outcomes and follow-up.
(a) Where the motion concerns a Director, the outcome is advisory and does not prejudice members’ statutory rights to remove a director under the Companies Act 2006.
(b) Where the motion concerns an Officer/employee, the Board shall minute its response and next steps (consistent with employment and confidentiality obligations) and report a summary to members.
(c) The Board may, in exercising its powers under the Articles to convene General Meetings and propose resolutions, table a Motion of No Confidence where it considers this necessary to uphold good governance or organisational integrity.
Such motions shall follow the same procedural standards set out in this Part.
X.8 Record and transparency. A summary of validated motions, the procedural review outcome, and the meeting result shall be recorded in the governance log and made available to members on request, subject to data-protection and confidentiality obligations.
X.9 Conflicts and precedence. If any provision of this Part conflicts with the Articles or the Companies Act 2006, the Articles and the Act prevail.
Clerical amendments consent
Clerical and Non-Substantive Amendments
By proposing or voting in favour of this motion, members consent to British Powerlifting making clerical and non-substantive amendments to the wording where necessary to:
- correct typographical errors, punctuation, grammar, and formatting;
- reformat or restructure the layout for consistent presentation across all motions, including separating rationale from proposed text where they have been combined;
- fix cross-references, numbering, and citations;
- align drafting with the clear intent of the motion where wording is inconsistent or ambiguous;
- add brief editorial annotations, clearly distinguished from the motion text, to aid voter understanding (e.g., clarifying which article or rule is being referenced);
- redact personal or sensitive information inadvertently included by the proposer (such as email addresses, phone numbers, or names of individuals not party to the motion);
- remove or amend content that is defamatory or in breach of British Powerlifting's codes of conduct;
- amend content that conflicts with Sport England governance best practices or International Powerlifting Federation (IPF) rules, making the minimum change necessary to bring the motion into compliance while preserving its intent; and
- make small, proportionate adjustments to address unintended consequences that were not intended by the rationale for the motion.
Any such amendments will be limited to changes that do not alter the substance or effect of the motion as proposed, and British Powerlifting will record a note of any amendments made alongside the published motion.
Intended outcome
These amendments ensure that motions of no confidence are treated as serious, evidence-based instruments of accountability — not as tools for personal or political disruption.
They balance member empowerment with organisational stability, aligning British Powerlifting’s practices with the standards of good governance observed across national and international sporting bodies.
Statement from the Board
The British Powerlifting Board may provide a statement sharing their position or view on this motion.The board welcome views on this proposed change.